City of Stonnington aims to create more open space
- Date:January 20, 2014
The City of Stonnington is flush with nightclubs, shops and socialites. What it doesn’t have a lot of, is parks. And so it has set out to acquire some.
Council has launched a $200,000 feasibility study and is test drilling this week to explore turning Cato Street car park in Prahran into a park.
But parking officers shouldn’t weep just yet or greenies rejoice – the council plans to move the car park under the park, which could increase the number of parking spaces from the current 400.
Mayor Adrian Stubbs said the car park may have to be at least two levels deep to make it viable.
The cost would be ”millions” but council will wait until the feasibility study’s report comes out in May. Council could finance it or seek private, federal, or, in an election year, state government funding.
Cr Stubbs would like an underground car park to offer shoppers the first two hours free, and sees the park as a village square, flanked by cafes and shops as well as the current supermarkets.
He said it would be a boon to locals. ”It gives residents a place to congregate, socialise. You’d see mums walking with their prams, it’s a place to engage in sporting activity, it’s a place just to sit and think. Would you rather have asphalt, or trees and grass? I’d rather have trees and grass.”
The move came from concerns that of Stonnington’s 26 square kilometres of land, only 6.7 per cent is public open space. It is the second-lowest ratio after Glen Eira at 4.5 per cent, and compares to an average 17.9 per cent in metropolitan Melbourne.
Cr Stubbs said because it was so ”mammothly behind” the council ”needs to be creative” to increase the percentage. It has identified 450 sites for investigation, including taking a 100-space car park in Edsall Street, Malvern, underground, if Cato Street proved successful. Cato Street and Edsall Street car parks are both council-owned.
Stonnington also has a $28.1 million reserve fund for 2013-2014 alone for the purchase of open space, raised from developers who subdivide property having to contribute to council 5 per cent of the land’s unimproved capital value towards open space, if they don’t contribute actual open space. Since 2007 the fund has purchased six properties, many adjoining parks, five of them worth more than $1 million, says Cr Stubbs.
Council has also applied for an acquisition overlay for vacant privately owned land in Carters Street, Toorak, and for vacant factories between Bangs Street and Clifton Street, Prahran, to signal council’s desire to purchase when it is sold in future. Other options being considered include buying railway land or building decking over it, creating ”pocket parks” in dead-end streets and creating roof gardens.
Oskar Cebergs, spokesman for the Chapel Street Precinct Association, said the 6.7 per cent open space figure was ”pretty frightening”. The association was ”fully supportive” of the open space strategy, including the greening of Cato Street car park. But building the car park shouldn’t be a priority over the council’s revitalisation of Chapel Street, including new footpaths, lighting, town squares, furniture and greening.
January 20, 2014 at 3:08 PM
Stonnington puts on public acquisition overlays and Glen Eira takes them off. Stonnington manages to buy private land and create parks and Glen Eira turns them into car parks. If it wasn’t for public outrage then the Packer park couple of houses would never have been turned into park. A great record of not giving a damn about open space and the needs of people for green grass and trees.
January 20, 2014 at 7:32 PM
Stonnington has the 2nd least open space per capita (1.7) in Metro Melbourne, Glen Eira has the least (1.4). The difference between the two Councils approach to the issue is chalk and cheese
. Stonnington actively seeks purchase opportunities, Glen Eira
looks for government hand outs (Booran Road Reservoir) then does nothing with them for 8 years or changes the definitions so that car parks and buildings in parklands qualify as open space
. Stonnington is charging the maximum open space levy across the municipality (5%), Glen Eira is thinking of applying somewhere between 4 and 5%.
. Stonnington holds it’s open space levy revenue in reserve for the acquisition and rehabillitiation of parkland. In 1998 Glen Eira promised to use the open space levy 50% land acquisition and 50% parkland maintenance but instead spent almost zip on parkland acquisition (2 house lots in Packer Park) and the rest went on maintenance and pavillions.
Says it all
January 20, 2014 at 10:26 PM
Please note that Stonnington is now seeking to up its levies to 8% across the municipality and more for commercial developments.
January 20, 2014 at 9:39 PM
Glen Eitra fails to collect levies and if it does it only ashphalts parks and builds multi million dollar buildings in the middle and roadways and car parks, some of which have parking metres and are actually revenue producing. We always seem to end up with less open space afetr the evies are received, not to mention the hectare upon hectare of drain and laneway reserves… they are all cashed in and absorbed into consolidated revenue. TResidents should list all the council land which has disappeared into thin air over the years … we would be astounded!
January 20, 2014 at 11:07 PM
Harlston Park, Gardenvale Park and Mallanbool Park all fairly recent additions to our scarce parkland .Also there are parts of the City that have more than adequate Parkland yet other areas have virtually none.The part of the City west of Hawthorn Rd does not have one oval and therefore no pavillions. Guess if $1 is spent west of Hawthorn Rd on recreation.By the way Aleck the 2 Packer Park properties were formally to be acquired by Council on death etc of the residents.
January 21, 2014 at 9:38 AM
Oh yeah and they wanted to flog the old bowling green to developers and only buy one property. Harlston park has been there for donkeys years and so has Gardenvale. They’ve all predated (thank God) Newton.
January 21, 2014 at 6:31 PM
Harleston Park and Gardenvale Park both predate the 1998 Open Space Longterm Strategy [see diagram on p14 of the Strategy]. Mallanbool Reserve is indeed a new addition, but it wasn’t acquired. The central problem remains: open space is unevenly distributed, and not growing at the rate that our population is increasing. Council had a strategy and mostly ignored it for 15 years. Compare the open space “catchment areas” in 1998 [500m radius] with the coverage now to see just how little has improved. For residents in the northern half of Carnegie they had their park bulldozed without replacement. The new [Draft] Strategy compounds the problem. It’s worth reading the Objectives and Strategies from 1998 to see how badly things have wrong in the subsequent 15 years, which by pure coincidence are the years we’ve had Andrew Newton as CEO.
January 21, 2014 at 11:00 AM
Glen Eira has received awards for the quality of it’s parks – sounds good but when you think about it you have to wonder.
Glen Eira has the least open space, the lowest open space levies of inner/middle ring metro Councils and spends open space levies on parkland maintenance and pavillions rather than acquiring additional parkland (despite residents continually raising concerns re inadequate open space). While claiming it listens to residents, Council focuses on quality (particularly of sports grounds) rather than quantity.
So what happened to the balance between the two (quality vs quantity) – sure winning awards is good but when it comes at the expense of fulfilling basic open space requirements, and at a time of intense development, it’s surely time for a re-think
January 21, 2014 at 11:57 AM
The focus of maintenance is on sports ovals in Glen Eira. It is a shame as fortunately there were Councillors with foresight who planned and built magnificent parks such as Caulfield and Hopetoun gardens that are now sadly neglected.
January 21, 2014 at 12:43 PM
please see http://joshburns.com.au/giving-back/. Labor candidate. Wonder if the giving back will be giving more land to the MRC or taking it back of them?
January 21, 2014 at 12:51 PM
Today’s Caulfield Leader has a council advertisement on selling a strip of land to the MRC that sits smack in the middle of the Caulfield Village proposal. As per usual, council’s approach is piece meal, step by step, without outlining at the start what is happening – exactly the same with the first “development plan” that will one day eventually make it into the public domain.
We also draw readers’ attention to the fact that the Monash rezoning is now set down for a ‘directions’ hearing and a panel hearing subsequently.
January 21, 2014 at 1:29 PM
This has to be the 3rd time a pocket parcel of land has been discovered in the middle of the humungous MRC development. First time part of an old lane way, second time a bit between property boundaries and now this.
Quite frankly this drip feed approach is wearing very thin. Neither the MRC nor Council have a grip and it does not inspire any confidence in either organization. Nor does it bode well for the success of the development.
January 21, 2014 at 12:50 PM
see page 15 in leader. More land being given to the MRC
January 22, 2014 at 8:45 PM
Aleck and others a simple question. When was the last time Stonnington created a new park and are you all naive enough to think that the proposed parking will be free. Further is there a difference between a proposal and a decision. Also Mr Aleck your so called proposal was never actioned and was only ever a proposal.Council has a duty to look at all alternatives and then consult prior to making a decision.I remember the time Council proposed the demolition of the Town Hall however this never happened.In other words the proposal remained a proposal and never eventiated.